Wednesday, July 17, 2013

Aftermath of Zimmerman Trial

Fallout from George
Zimmerman Not Guilty Verdict

Even though the trial has ended, the news media cannot stop
talking about the George Zimmerman trial. Though in the first couple of posts I
exhibited disdain for the media circus surrounding the trial, I am actually
delighted the news is still covering the case, because now they have gotten to what
this trial really symbolized: race relations and gun control. The big topic
after the “Not Guilty” verdict surrounded Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law.
According to the Washington Post, the “Stand Your Ground” law allows a person
to “prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to
prevent the commission of a forcible felony.” It basically means that a person
is allowed to use deadly force (even if they could run away), even outside of
their home, if they believe someone is trying to kill them or seriously harm
them. Though Zimmerman’s defense did not argue his innocence based on this law,
it is easy to make the connection between Martin’s murder and this piece of
legislation. Bill Baxley, the Florida state representative who co-sponsored
this law, defended “Stand Your Ground” on CNN this morning saying that this law
should stay on the books because the Zimmerman trial was not about this law.

I personally do not know how anyone can say there is no
connection between Zimmerman’s trial and this law. Even though the defense did
not bring it up in the courtroom, it is clear that if Zimmerman wanted to, he
could have used this law as his defense. Zimmerman pursued a man who was not
trying to invade his home or anyone else’s and killed him in “self-defense”
after instigating the confrontation. Actually in thinking about it, it seems
that because of “Stand Your Ground,” Zimmerman should have definitely been
guilty. According to this law, a person has a right to stand their ground and
not run away if they feel threatened even outside their home. Under this law,
it seems like Martin would have had the right to confront Zimmerman if he felt
threatened that Zimmerman was following him. It also appears that he would he
been justified to be on top of Zimmerman and knock him against the concrete if
he in fact implemented “Stand Your Ground.”

At least the Attorney General, Eric Holder, understands the
excessive amount of violence this law could cause especially now that Zimmerman
got acquitted of the charges. Even though Governor Scott of Florida convened a
special session and deemed the “Stand Your Ground” law to be a just and good law,
maybe the attorney general will do a better job of alerting the public to the
idea that this law could cause more harm than good.

The other big development in the aftermath of the George
Zimmerman trial involved one of the jurors. Anderson Cooper was able to secure
an exclusive interview with one of the jurors (looks like Jeff Zucker will be
able to get the ratings he could never obtain as head of NBC). During this
interview, the juror, who did remain anonymous by sitting in the dark, spoke
about some mundane things that happened during her time as a juror such as her
relationship with the other jurors and how there was almost a hung jury because
one of the jurors wanted to leave for personal reasons. The juror did make one
interesting comment regarding the case. She told Cooper that she 100% believes
that she and the other jurors made the right decision and that Zimmerman was
not guilty. When Cooper tried to get her to elaborate, the juror further
explained that though she did not think Zimmerman was right in his actions
leading up to him killing Martin, she does believe that he was justified in
pulling the trigger once the confrontation occurred.

Ok I need to take a step back from this for a moment. I
agree that based on the lame ass case the prosecution put on, I do not fault
any of the jurors for acquitting Zimmerman; however, if the anonymous juror’s
true reasoning for acquitting Zimmerman was her explanation above, then I am
flabbergasted. That reason makes no sense to me (and I think to any sane person
that reasoning would seem counterintuitive as well). If that is her reasoning,
how is that different from a stalker/victim relationship. Let me explain....under
this juror’s explanation, a stalker would be able to follow another individual.
If that person felt threatened and decided to confront the stalker (which is
legal under “Stand Your Ground”), the stalker would then be justified to kill
the person he stalked because he felt in danger by the confrontation. I feel
like I have fallen down the rabbit hole.

At least the other jurors seemed to have better reasons to
acquit Zimmerman. After this interview, four out of the five other jurors
released a statement saying that the juror on Anderson Cooper 360 did not speak for the group.

It has been five days since the verdict and already so much
has happen. It will be interesting to see where this goes next. Until next time…